In Re Lambert’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 6 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Mazzeo v. United States (1997), Promenade National Bank v. Phillips (1988)
6 federal appellate · 6 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 109 · 28 U.S.C. § 157
Relies on Wright v. Union Central Life Insurance · In Re All Media Properties, Inc. · United States v. Tibbetts · Merrill v. Abbott (In Re Independent Clearing House Co.) · Colorado Energy Supply Inc National Acceptance Company of America v. Price
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“one which the debtor will be called upon to pay only upon the occurrence or happening of an extrinsic event which will trigger the liability of the debtor to the alleged creditor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Baird · In Re Pennypacker“[W]here a contract was entered into by parties who did not contemplate that any further act had to be completed in order to trigger contractual liability, then such liability would not be contingent.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Fostvedt · Fostvedt v. Dow“a debt whose liability or amount is disputed ... should not be included in the eligibility calculation.” Id. at 915 . We note that the Norton treatise identifies Lambert as the decision that does not follow the vast majority of holdings that include disputed debts in the § 109(e) calculus. See Norton, supra, § 18:12 at 18-43 n. 91. Our court, which has held that”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. In re Knight
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.